Public Statements

Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011

Floor Speech

I want to say to my friend from Athens, Georgia, where you do not have beaches, you know that the local share, once the Corps of Engineers does a cost-benefit analysis, which it always does, there is a requirement the State and the local government kick in. The State gives a pretty good amount of money. But the reason why they may be more motivated from a economic basis is they directly benefit from the economic impact.

I do agree with you the Federal Government should not be worried about the economic impact, but where the Federal Government is most concerned is in flood control. As you and I know, the more sand you have in between you and the high tide when the hurricane comes, the more protected you are going to be.

And as long as we have FEMA that writes checks after disasters and a National Flood Insurance Program, there is a good reason that the Federal Government is involved with beach renourishment.

It has nothing to do with recreation, really less to do with economics, but a heck of a lot to do with flood protection. And that is why the Federal Government is involved in it. So to my friend from Athens, you are welcome to come down to Tybee Island anytime you want to despite this irresponsible amendment of yours. But I am going to oppose it, and welcome you to come. Bring your own suntan oil.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding and rise in opposition to this amendment. And I do so as a proud RSC member and somebody who fought hard to get us to $100 billion in this cut, who has pledged to work for more cuts in fiscal year 2012. I support the Goodlatte balanced-budget amendment and the spending cap.

But I have got to say to my conservative friends, when you cut across the board, who do you think is going to be in charge of where these cuts come from? The EPA Director, who is putting in the clean air and all the greenhouse emissions stuff. Do you think she is going to cut that out of her budget? What about the Department of Justice? You think they are going to take this out of the lawsuit money to Arizona? What about the EPA that came up with a law that dairy farmers had to have an emergency response plan if they spilled milk because it was considered an oil? What about the immigration department? Do you think they are going to back off their priorities, or do you think they are going to implement RSC priorities?

You and I have some disagreements with the administration, so I don't see why it helps us to empower them to make the decisions on where this 5 percent will come from. Because I can say if I was them, I know what I would cut, and it would not be the priorities that you would have.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

I stand in strong support of the Rehberg amendment. I do so because of this very controversial health care bill which was passed through strong-arm tactics last year during a time period when the American public was crying out against it. This was a product of the backroom deal-making in Washington, D.C. This is one reason why the Democrats lost control of the U.S. Congress. It wasn't so much the bill; it was the process.

But let's talk about the bill. An individual mandate that's already been ruled unconstitutional by two judges, a mandate which the Governor of Alaska is saying he is not even going to implement the rule. This is hardly a law that's bringing America together. This bill needs to be put on the back burner, and let us retool it and rework it. I believe that's what the Americans want us to do.

It destroys the doctor-patient relationship. One thing that's abundantly clear is people do not want the insurance companies telling the hospitals and the docs how to conduct medicine. But they sure as heck don't want government bureaucrats in Washington, D.C., and all of the hundreds of new agencies and the IRS agents coming in and telling the doctor how to conduct medicine. The cost of this--there is not one credible report that says this will bring down costs.

And I keep hearing this hollow cry from Democrats, suddenly with 15 million people unemployed, that they are concerned about jobs. I haven't met in the First District of Georgia or anywhere else I have traveled in the country one business person who says this is a great bill.

And I want to say this about 26-year-old children: As a father of four, and I have three kids under 26 years old, they are old enough to take care of themselves. They don't need the nanny state coming in. I have raised them to be responsible. At the age of 21, I expect them to go out and get their health care. You know, the average age in Vietnam I think was 19 years old. World War II, probably the same. And we have soldiers in harm's way all over the world who can take care of themselves. But we are saying but come home to mommy and daddy, we will take care of you until you are 26 years old.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. KINGSTON. And let me say this, Mr. Chairman. If you talk to the Nation's Governors, Democrat and Republican, one of the biggest drains on their expenses right now, on their budget, is Medicaid. Yet this bill increases the Medicaid rolls by 16 million people without funding it. If we want to break our States, we need to keep this bill. If we want to help them, we need to repeal it.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

We keep hearing from the Democrats that we're here and that we're not doing a jobs bill.

Why are we doing this bill? Why are we doing this bill now? It's because you guys did not pass a budget. We are on FY11, as you know, because you did not take care of your business. We are reaching back, trying to finish up what you guys should have done by October 1 of last year.

By the way, this does create jobs, because the small businesses do not want government-mandated health care; and the folks back home don't want bureaucrats coming in between the doctor-patient relationship, which is what ObamaCare does. Now, we know the nanny state wants full control from cradle to grave, but folks back home don't want it. That's what November was about.

So what we're trying to do is finish up the unfinished business of the Pelosi House from last year so that we can move forward on the coming year, FY12. We will continue to have this debate, but we are trying to protect the doctor-patient relationship, not create a doctor-bureaucrat-patient relationship, which ObamaCare does.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. KINGSTON. I rise in opposition to the Kind amendment.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. KINGSTON. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Chairman, in 2004, the WTO, the World Trade Organization, found the United States guilty of illegal subsidies to American cotton farmers. It's been a long process, but Brazil is a very important ally of ours. We get along fine. They are very important to us strategically in our own hemisphere, so we want to get along with Brazil. And because of that, we worked out this settlement which kept Brazil from putting retaliatory tariffs on us. That saved us money.

If we did not agree to this--which Mr. Kind has pointed out--$147 million, we would have to pay $829 million. This is less, and it only is in effect until the farm bill is passed. In the 2012 farm bill, we'll deal with that.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. KINGSTON. Madam Chair, I yield myself 10 seconds. I just want to point out that I understand and hear what the folks are saying, but we are in a situation where we have an existing farm bill. If we do not do this, it is going to cost American taxpayers $682 million. That was the WTO agreement.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. KINGSTON. I would remind the gentleman from Oregon we are going to reauthorize the farm bill next year, which is what this is all about.